PSY220 - 1. Social Facilitation/Social loafing/Group performance + decisions Conformity & obedience Flashcards
Social psychology
Beliefs, Feelings, Attitudes, Emotions→ Behaviour → Other People(and their thoughts, feeling, attitudes + behavior)
Social science
Social psychology
scientific study of reciprocal influence of indiv + social environment
cycle of influence
abstract theory + concrete practice
Keen on solving real world problems (racism)
Mixture of basic + applied research
Social psychology
traffic in probabilities, likelihood + correlations, rather than absolute laws
Despite enormous variability of behaviour, possible to extract some basic patterns of human behaviour
Intrinsic motivation
perform better rather than when rewarded – statistically likely, better than chance
Could this pattern have happened by chance?
Phenonmenon doesn’t happen to all people all the time
Intuitions
important to verify common sense + folk intuition with data based objective
must be tested against empirical data
sometimes two opposing clichés may seem equally intuitive, counter intuitive
each one makes sense: which intuition makes sense with the data
SOCIAL FACILITATION
Triplett (1897): Got 40 children to wind up fishing reels, alone/side-by-side Dv: inches of line – objective variable Side by side condition yielded more line Efforts to replicate results were mixed Some results were the opposite
SOCIAL FACILITATION: Zajonc
presence of others increases arousal (physiologically measurable, i.e. heart-rate, sweating palms, etc.).
SOCIAL FACILITATION: Zajonc
Arousal energizes you + facilitates dominant response (comes most quickly + easily). Arousal activates thoughts + motor responses that are the most practiced (accessible).
SOCIAL FACILITATION: Zajonc
On a well-learned task (reciting the alphabet/your birthday), the dominant response is the correct response.
On a poorly-learned task (naming state capitols/your mother-in-law’s birthday), the dominant response is likely to be incorrect.
SOCIAL FACILITATION
an audience should improve your performance on tasks easy for you and hamper your performance on tasks more difficult.
SOCIAL FACILITATION THEORIES:
Zajonc – mere presence: Presence of others arousing + enhances dominant responses
social, mere presence
diff theories work better in diff conditions. Current, ongoing work looks at isolating these conditions.
THE “COCKROACH” EXPERIMENT
The easy maze vs. The “hard” maze
Varied the walls of the maze
Glass walls – cockroaches watching or not
Facilitation is fundamental to all species
Cockroach arousal systems are diff
Data consistent with this idea
SOCIAL FACILITATION THEORIES: Evaluation apprehension
Cotrell: has to be a threat of error
Audience but they were blindfolded: effect was reduced but not fully eliminated
Concern for how others evaluating us
perform best when collector is slightly superior
SOCIAL FACILITATION THEORIES: Evaluation apprehension
Arousal lessons when high status group is diluted by adding people opinions don’t matter to us
People who worry most about other evaluations are the ones most affected by presence
facilitation effects Greatest when others unfamiliar + hard to keep an eye on
social, not mere presence
SOCIAL FACILITATION THEORIES: distraction-conflict model
Conflict between paying attention to others and paying attention to the task
SOCIAL FACILITATION THEORIES: distraction-conflict model
Baron: distraction removes attention on task at hand – increases arousal,
can be distracted by other distractions
Nonsocial distractions can also facilitate easy tasks + impair difficult tasks
non social/mere presence
SOCIAL LOAFING
presence of others cause us to relax When efforts are pooled + performance of any one individual is difficult or impossible for observers to determine.
Anonymity is a gateway to loafing
Ringelmann – french
Compared agricultural machines + farmers in strength in pulling rope
whole less than sum of the parts Other ppl should increase performance (a)groups less coordinated (more interference – nothing to do with individual effort) tug of war is clumsy/disorganized (b) people try less hard in groups
SOCIAL LOAFING
tendency for ppl to exert less effort when pull their efforts toward common goal than when individually accountable
Free riders: benefit from group but give little in return
SOCIAL LOAFING
being observed increases evaluation concerns, social facilitation occurs
being in a crowd decreases evaluation concerns, social loafing occurs
exert more effort when outputs individually identifiable
Latane:
either alone/part of team, but their teammates in separate rooms.
task: To scream and yell and make as much noise as possible! (Dependent variable: decibel level)
Latane:
Alone – (supposedly) 1 other person- 82% on average 5 other people- 74%
lose about quarter of yelling power when they think there are 5 other ppl
alone better at generating ideas
robust across cultures
more judicious about expending efforts + resources
What reduces loafing?
- identifiability – degree to which output is unidentifiable
- importance of task – if not identifiable, still less when it’s a task ppl care about
- own efforts necessary for successful outcome – believe if they will fail without their effort
What reduces loafing?
4.threat of punishment for poor performance – requires identifiable except group punishment
5.small group
6.group cohesiveness – rather than doing same task, division of labour
Latane talked about it as a negative
Social loafing in every day life
Those who see themselves as less capable strive to keep up with the rest of the group
Group size
big crowd/cover of night-lose Inhibition
attribute behavior to situation, everyone is doing it, they don’t see it as their own choice
Physical anonymity
Anonymity can make someone less self-conscious and more responsive to cues presented
• anonymity can lead to affection as well as violence
Arousing and distracting activities
Self reinforcing pleasure in doing an impulsive act while observing others doing it also
enjoy intense positive feelings and feel close to others
Diminished self-awareness
self-aware exhibit greater consistency between words and their deeds
Mirrors and cameras, small towns, bright lights, name tags, undistracted quiet, individual clothes
Karau & Williams-collective effort model
Big tradeoff: Effort is fatiguing
seek to optimize ratio between input + groups output – seek optimal balance
Adaptive mechanism: if I tried 110%, I would burn out
Make choices when to go big or hold out
Social Compensation
Hold out when not necessary
Try even harder necessary
Compensate for slackers in group task
only in the collective condition – contributions pooled together
Social Compensation
Coactive condition – other ppl there, on same task but output is judged individually
collective condition brings about these effects
scored better on math test when partner was female than male – expecting females to be worse at math
Allocation of resources unconsciously – strategic calculation outside of consciousness
GROUP DECISION MAKING: risky shift
Stoner (1961): risky shift later evidence suggested the opposite
ppl took more risks when with group than by themselves
tendency for groups to accentuate initial leanings
GROUP DECISION MAKING: risky shift
Groups less risky – afraid of leading group down a garden path
Later studies found the opposite: groups are more conservative
Group polarization effect
Group discussion amplifies initial group inclination
group produced enhancement of members pre-existing tendencies not the split within the group
Group polarization in every day life
Accentuation phenomenon: overtime, initial differences among groups of university students become accentuated
Like-minded people associate increasingly with one another, amplifying their tendencies
Easier for small groups to rally like-minded people, crystallized defuse hatreds and mobilize lethal force
What creates group polarization (Moscovici)?
- Greater # of arguments in favor of one position: arguments in favour you never heard before, hearing them validates your position
- Informational influence* may solidify ideas that used to be vague.: when our own ideas + opinions are vague we need others to solidify our opinions
What creates group polarization (Moscovici)?
3.Social categorization: Clear boundaries drawn betw ingroup + outgroup.: hard distinctions, ppl unconsciously exagerrate diff betw us + them, overestimate extremity of own + other’s opinion which further polarizes opinions
Just stating opinions, polarization still occurs
Informational influence and group polarization
pools together ideas most of which favor dominant viewpoint
Active participation in discussion produces more added to change then passive listening
more group members repeat one another’s ideas, more they rehearse + validate them
expecting to discuss with someone with an opposing view can motivate people to Marshall their arguments to an extreme position
Normative influence and group polarization
most persuaded by our reference groups – groups we identify with
Wanting people to like us we express stronger opinions after we learn that they share our views
Instead of conforming people usually like to go up one
Pluralistic ignorance
a false impression of how others are thinking feeling or responding
Normative influence and group polarization
Social comparison sways responses on value laden judgments
other share the same feelings it unleashes arguments supporting what everyone secretly favors
Groupthink
excessive tendency to seek agreement among group members
Suboptimal decision making process
Agreement is prioritized
1961 – attack on fidel castro: disaster
kennedy was able to stop nuclear war
compared what kennedy did wrong + right the second time
Groupthink
Mode of thinking persons engage in when concurrence seeking become so dominant in a cohesive in group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action
Camraderie boost productivity +morale
Janis (1982): Groupthink likely when:
- members have similar backgrounds: diversity helps
- isolated: no reality check/outside world
- strong charismatic leader: kennedy was charismatic
Janis (1982): Groupthink likely when:
- lacking systematic decision-making procedures: air of chaos, rules of order (who can talk when)
- high stress: social facilitation, in complex situations the dominant response is the wrong response
Symptoms of groupthink
- illusion of invulnerability:
- collective efforts to rationalize: extinguish contradictory ideas
- unquestioned belief in group’s inherent morality:
- stereotyped view of enemy leaders as weak or stupid
Symptoms of groupthink
5.direct pressure on dissenters to comply with the group
6.self-censorship of deviations from group consensus: don’t wanna be the deviant
7.shared illusions of unanimity pluralistic ignorance
8.emergence of self-appointed “mind guards” to screen group from adverse information
second time he didn’t attend most of these meetings
introduced new members, outside members, systematic procedures
Symptoms of groupthink
Overestimate groups right + might:
Group members become close minded
Rationalization: group discounts challenges by collectively justifying decisions
failure to see can discuss contrary info + alternative possibilities
Critiquing the concept of groupthink
Directive leadership is associated with poor decisions, subordinate sometimes feel too weak to speak up
prefer supporting over challenging info
Groups with diverse perspectives outperform groups of like-minded experts. tend to produce more ideas and greater creativity
In a free-spirited atmosphere, cohesion can enhance effective teamwork
Preventing groupthink
Be impartial: do not endorse any position
Encourage critical evaluation assign a devils advocate
Bring in genuine critic which does even more to stimulate original thinking + open a group to opposing views
Occasionally subdivide groups
Preventing groupthink
Welcome critiques from outside experts + associate
Before implementing call second chance meeting to air any lingering doubts
Sometimes groupthink pressures lead to conformity or self censorship
Group Performance vs. Individual Performance
Whether they do better/worse depends on task
Additive task: product sum of all members’ contributions Result: groups tend to outperform indiv
Conjunctive task: product determined by individual with worst performance (mountain climbing team)
Group Performance vs. Individual Performance
Result: can only do as well as worst performer – tends to be worse than average indiv – more ppl there are in group, more likely to get someone who brings the group down
Disjunctive task: product determined by individual with best performance (group needs to generate one brilliant idea).
Result: typically groups do better than indiv, mixed results
Brainstorming
1.production blocking: ppl follow rules of polite conversation, busy rehearsing what they say, not paying attention to what others say, more opportunities to get them out there
2.free riding/social loafing
3.evaluation apprehension: can’t help but feel that others are judging
4.performance matching: match group standards
But: It is enjoyable and a morale booster.
Group problem-solving
Several heads critiquing each other can also allow group to avoid some forms of cognitive bias + produce some higher-quality ideas
brainstorming groups are inefficient and some individuals free ride on each others efforts
Combined group in solitary brainstorming: Group brainstorming followed by solo brainstorming. new categories prime by group brainstorming individuals can continue flowing without being impeded by group context
Group problem-solving
Google: wisdom of crowds
Game shows : Who wants to be a millionaire
The crowd within: ask yourself the same question
When information from many diverse people come together we can become smarter than almost any of us alone
Task leadership and social leadership
Leadership: process by which certain group members motivate + guide group
Task leadership: organizing work, setting standards + focusing on goal attainment
Directive style – bright enough
Goal oriented, maintain groups attention and effort focused on its mission
Transactional leadership
- Effective leadership styles vary with situation
- Best letters are both good at task in social leadership
- They are actively concerned with progressing and sensitive to the needs of their subordinates
- They seek to fulfill the subordinates need to put maintain hi expectation for how subordinates will perform
Transactional leadership
Effective leadership styles vary with situation
good at task + social leadership
actively concerned with progressing + sensitive to the needs of their subordinates
seek to fulfill the subordinates need to put maintain high expectation for how subordinates will perform
Transformational leadership
Exude self-confident charisma that kindles allegiance of their followers
Cause members to identify with and commitment to the groups mission
Charismatic, energetic, self-confident extroverts
Articulate high standards, inspire people to share their vision and offer personal attention
More engaged, trusting and effective workforce
Smart leaders remain in the majority and spend their influence prudently
When traits match with right situation yield history making change
influence of the minority: how individuals influence the group
Blatant pressure can motivate us to start our individuality + freedom
can resist persuasion by making public comments + anticipating persuasive appeals
Consistency
Persistent nonconformity is often painful
Minority slowness effect: tendency for people with minority to express them less quickly than people in the majority
Minority may stimulate creative thinking
It becomes of focus of debate
Self-confidence
Consistency + persistence convey self-confidence
minority are less persuasive regarding the fact been regarding attitude
Defections from the majority
Minority punctures any illusion of unanimity
Majority feels more free to express doubts
Informational + normative influence fuels both group polarization + minority influence
Social impact of any position depends on strength, immediacy + number of those who supported
CONFORMITY
Does group norm actually influence visual/physiological system + cause different groups of people to actually see different things from the exact same stimulus input?
Sherif
dark room + presented with illusion that red dot was moving
convergence in group, points vary between groups
when tested alone again: anchored to the group norm, not all over the place like they used to be
replacing members gradually – still see perpetuation norm
created a culture – arbitrary
presence of others can influence visual perception
conformity might be occuring at the level of reporting
Moscovici & Personnaz (1980, 1991)
(a) Subjects (in groups) were presented with an aquamarine (blue/green) patch of color on the wall.
(b) Half were told to look at the “blue” patch on the wall, half were told to look at the “green” patch on the wall.
(c) Groups told “blue” said they saw “blue” – groups told “green” said they saw “green.”
(d) BUT: Did they actually see what they reported seeing?
Moscovici & Personnaz (1980, 1991)
(e)subjects asked to look at a blank (white) wall. Basic principle of color vision: Viewing green causes red “afterimages,” viewing blue causes yellow “afterimages.”
(f)Subjects asked to report the color of the afterimage they saw on the wall.
Results: those in blue reported yellow, those in green reported seeing red
There is social normative influence on visual perception
Sherif and Asch: Normative influence
Fear of being ostracized by the group.
tends to yield superficial, public acceptance of majority view. (e.g., politician giving speech in suburbs vs. inner city). – I’m right, but I’ll go with it
Sherif: informational
Asch: normative
Conformity
Change in behaviour or belief to accord with others
Compliance: conformity that involves publicly acting in accord with social pressure while disagreeing
Obedience: acting in accord with a direct order
Acceptance: involves both acting + believing in accord with social pressure
Studies of Norm Formation
Chartrand + Bargh (1999): chameleon effect - Mimicking an automatic behaviour done without conscious intention to conform + incline to feel same thing
Van Baaren: mimicry inclines other ppl to like you + be helpful to you + others
Being mimicked enhances social bonds
Allen & Levine (1969): Studies of Norm Formation
(a)replication of Asch “which line is longest” paradigm
(b)confederate either (1) agreed w/majority, (2) agreed w/ subject, or (3) made own wrong judgment
Result: huge drop in conformity in #2 + #3
Studies of Norm Formation: Allen & Levine #2.
(b)confederate wore thick glasses + complained of poor eyesight.
Result: still led to a considerable drop in conformity
Studies of Norm Formation
more about normative influence than informational influence, since confederate did not add any useful information – also made wrong answer,
ppl are sheep + want to conform, but even slightest reason not to conform they will jump to that
When they’ve got someone else that doesn’t conform, then they feel like they can deviate
Decrease in conformity when the group is way off
What moderates the effect?
(1) group size, but only up until 4
(2) awareness of norm – high possibility of pluralistic ignorance
pluralistic ignorance: The Princeton Drinking Study
Study 1: representative cross-section of undergraduate popu, (a) rated own attitudes toward drinking + (b) estimated avg student’s attitude toward drinking at the university. Results: rated themselves less pro-drinking than average
pluralistic ignorance: The Princeton Drinking Study
Study 2: rated their own attitude, estimated friend’s comfort level with campus-wide norm, + estimated avg comfort level. Results: Replicated Study 1 + “friend” was between “self” and “average student”.
Amount of info: most about own, friend, than others
More info you have, more you know true info on drinking
pluralistic ignorance: The Princeton Drinking Study
Study 3: ‘conformity’ prediction was tested. predicted students would change their private attitudes aligning with campus norms
Results: avg drinks went up, conforming to norm. but this misconceived norm doesn’t exist, but since they were following this norm, they made it a real norm
pluralistic ignorance
Prentice taught ½ of the subjects about pluralistic ignorance. Then, experimenters monitored drinking habits over the course of the semester
Results: those who learned about PI drank less
Ppl want to conform to norm, but sometimes they misidentify norm + engage in misguided conformity
Public service ads serve to inform ppl of the right norm – printed ads of avg drinking
What Breeds obedience?
victims distance: People at most compassionate lead toward those who are personalized
Closeness and legitimacy of authority: Physical presence of experimenter affects obedience
authority however must be perceived as legitimate
What Breeds obedience?
Institutional authority: Yale
liberating effects of groups influence: Millgram place two confederates to defy the experimenter + 90% liberated themselves by conforming to the defiant confederates
What Breeds obedience?
The power of the situation
• Strength of social contacts
• Power of normative pressures and showed how hard it is to predict behavior even our own
• It’s surprisingly difficult to violate the norm of being nice rather than confrontational
• Evil also results from social forces – heat, humidity, disease
• Evil situation that produces evil behavior
• Situations can induce ordinary people to capitulate to cruelty
• Most terrible evil evolves from a sequence of small evils
What Breeds obedience?
The power of the situation: Strength of social contacts
Evil also results from social forces – heat, humidity, disease
Evil situation that produces evil behavior
Situations can induce ordinary people to capitulate to cruelty
Most terrible evil evolves from a sequence of small evils
What predicts conformity
Conformity is highest when group has to or more people and is cohesive, unanimous and high in status
Responses public and made without prior commitment
Group size: 3 to 5 people will elicit much more conformity than just 1/2. Increasing beyond five yields diminishing returns
agreement of several small groups makes a position more credible
What predicts conformity
Unanimity: punctures unanimity deflates it’s social power
easier to stand up for something if you can find someone else to stand up with you
Cohesion: Minority opinion from someone outside group we identify with
Cohesiveness: the We feeling – extent to which members of a group are bound together such as my attraction for one another
What predicts conformity
Status: Higher status ppl more impact
Public response: conform more when they must respond publicly in front of others rather than writing their answers privately
No prior commitment: Once having made a public commitment, they stick to it
Refs usually say the call on the field stands and require considerable evidence to overturn it
Who conforms
Personality: predicts behavior better when social influences weak
Positive moods tend to enhance conformity, negative moods reduce conformity
Culture: Collectivist countries are more responsive to others influence
In individualist countries, people see themselves as non-conforming than others in their consumer purchases and political views
Working class people tend to prefer similarity to others while middle-class people more strongly preferred to see themselves as unique individuals
Who conforms
Social roles: have powerful effects
must three conform to their four more rolls before being back in sync
Social roles will always very with culture but process by which rules influence behavior vary much less
Do we ever want to be different
Reactance: protect or restore one sense of freedom. Attributions for consensus: determine whether we follow lead
Asserting uniqueness: People feel better when they see themselves as moderately unique
Individuals who have highest need for uniqueness tend to be least responsive do majority influence
Standard Milgram
real subject increases shock everytime they get one wrong until it reaches the end
recorded tape – increasing protestations
how far do the subjects go
Do we ever want to be different
When people of two cultures are nearly identical, they will notice their differences however small
Rivalry is often most intense when the other group closely resembles your own
Our quest is to be better than the average
Authority
power to influence/control based on social norms, traditions, values, and rules that prescribe that one has the right to such power
ppl obey authority figure independently of what others do
How much is each of us responsible for the fact that this person was given electric shocks against his will?
Obedience subjects: assigned more responsibility to victim, but similar betw experimenter + self
Defiant subjects: assigned more to self than experimenter + victim
Betw they held roughly equal responsibility to experimenter
Aikeman’s defence was that he was forced by bureaucracy to kill during the Holocaust
Standard Milgram
65% is the baseline
Legitimacy: 2 disagreeing experimenters: conforming drops to 0, 2/3 openly rebel: drop
another subject gives orders, not researcher: drops
rundown random building: greater disobedience, wear a labcoat/no labcoat
Immediacy; In the room/via intercom: reduces obedience when not there
Subject puts learner’s hand on shock: not as detached – decrease in obedience
Tells someone else to press button: greater than baseline obedience, level of removal – personal responsibility
Great decrease in conformity when subject chooses next level of shock: personal responsibility for shocks
Zombardi: Prison experiment, no real data, but simulation
We do conform, but there are conditions
Ethics: Illegal to do these experiments, make them believe they are harming others
Concern of long term effects on participants
experiments that involve human participants we have to do elaborate proposals
Only approved studies are allowed to be conducted
What amount of suffering is allowable in the name of science?
If we are getting valuable info, how much can we allow?
